remove_forward

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that a rule is removed but says nothing about whether the call is idempotent, what happens if no matching rule exists, whether the serial parameter targets a specific device, or whether the operation affects other forwards — significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action, scope, and target port are all stated in one clause and every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the core action is clear. However, for a 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the missing device-targeting semantics and error behavior leave it only minimally complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It clarifies that local_port is the TCP local port of the forward rule, which adds a little meaning, but the optional serial parameter (device selection, default null) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Remove a single adb forward rule') and scopes it to 'tcp:local_port', so the agent knows exactly which rule type is affected. The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from clear_forwards, but it never names that sibling, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'a single ... rule' hints that this removes one entry while clear_forwards removes all, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of remove_reverse or clear_forwards as alternatives, and no stated prerequisites such as an active device connection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.